RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wanting to take care of his father, who is dying of cancer and is confined to bed, the petitioner had applied for emergent parole under Rule 10A of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Rules of 1958') to the District Magistrate, Alwar. However, vide order dated 11.5.2007, the learned Magistrate had rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of regular first parole. Hence this petition before this court. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allegedly involved in the offences under Sections 302/34, 448/34, 331/34, and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in the year 1999. Subsequently, he was convicted and sentenced to Life Imprisonment by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Jhalawar vide judgment dated 20.12.2003. So far the petitioner has served about 5 years and 4 months' of imprisonment excluding the remission period. The petitioner's father Sh. Kundan Lal, an old man of 70 years, is suffering from cancer of the rectum. Because of this dreadful disease, he is totally confined to bed. Since he further needs to undergo chemotherapy, the petitioner, being the eldest son in the family, had applied for emergent parole under Rule 10A of the Rules of 1958. However, the same has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Alwar.

(2.) Mr. Anshuman Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the fundamental rights granted to a citizen are not obliterated merely because a citizen is imprisoned considering the fact that emergent situation may arise for a convicted prisoner. Rule 10A of the Rules of 1958 permits the grant of emergent parole to meet out urgent situation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a social beneficial piece of legislation that should be applied liberally. Considering the fact that the petitioner's father is in the grip of cancer and desperately needs medical attention, the learned Magistrate should have granted emergent parole.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned public Prosecutor has vehemently opposes grant of emergent parole.